Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

AG,
Let's go back to your confusion here. In https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535788/#msg535788 A.King suggested the following:
"Itsu:  Try experimenting with an earth ground."
Now what was wrong with him suggesting that? Notice how you respond in:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535793/#msg535793
You quote this one line here and write:
"Yes we all like to play in the sand with our little one's, wile we have the time here.
but that's not the trick 'really' is it! You talk about DVD7 energy from vacuum series.
And yet you play with squiggly lines in a wire you call a sine wave, and i'm the idiot wasting space.
I ask you this, how the ... did tesla get access to HF ? cus your ignoring something he did your not.
You need to get back the Tesla's basics.
AG"

You seem to forget how this whole confusion from you started here. It was because you wrote this above in response to A.King's simple suggestion to Itsu to experiment with an earth ground. Maybe you were thinking you were responding to some other statement of his??? It just doesn't make any sense, either this initial response or all the others after, like below. Let's look at this in order.
1. What does "play in the sand" have to do with earth ground suggestion?
2. What's "not the trick"? What trick? No one is saying grounding is a trick. But it does make a difference.
3. Why bring up DVD7 here when you are replying to this grounding suggestion?
4. What "squiggly lines in a wire you call a sine wave"? What does that have to do with grounding statement? What are you referring to? Some previous posting of A.King's? I don't see the point here?
5. What do you mean by your insult to A.King: "and i'm the idiot wasting space"? If you are making no connections with your points in relation to your quote you are supposed to be replying to then it would be wasting space on this forum. If we can't understand you because you don't take the time to make clear sentences with clear meanings then what is the point when we can't understand this confusion. And why the insult here?
6. Then you go on to another unconnected aggressive question: "how the ... did tesla get access to HF"? What does that question have to do with suggesting grounding? And to answer the question he made hf motors/generators and he also used oscillation circuits with resonance.
7. Then you mutter something further as if you are trying to prove an unintelligible point: "cus your ignoring something he did your not." What do you even mean here? Can you take the time to properly make sentences? What does suggesting grounding have to do with this? What was A.King ignoring? Are you suggesting that Tesla had no high frequency? What are you talking about? This is all very confusing.
8. Then you finish this strange unconnected response with: "You need to get back the Tesla's basics." What Tesla basics? He suggested grounding and because of that you say this. What do you mean? Tesla basics includes grounding. Are you not aware of that? You are either very confused or do not know Tesla basics. I just don't understand anything you wrote in this initial post that was a response.

Then you continue with a slew of comments interjected within quotations from me, of which we really don't have time to quote all of them. But here is one of the last ones where you act like you never said anything like you did in this initial response about A.King suggesting grounding:

Rick is quoted:
"AG,
Ok looking back at that comment I can see this is another case in point that I read it the opposite way than you intended. I thought you were saying JB was saying no grounding. Anyway, the case in point is that you are not taking the time to write clearly. Even in the rest of the statement you made I didn't really understand what you were meaning. We can't be and don't want to be inside your head man!   The reason I thought you were speaking against grounding was because of your previous attack against A.King when he just made a small point about grounding. Then you attacked in with a bunch of statements that made no sense. I think you either need to take more time to type a little longer or get some help if you can't see this problem. To say A.king is trolling you also makes no sense. What was that about? You were the one that attacked him for no reason. I just don't get what is going on here."

AG you later respond within the quote with more confusion that doesn't address my points here. What on earth do these first words mean? Why do you deny the above context of earth/grounding? Profile you??? You deny your very quoted response to a simple suggestion to try grounding! Then you divert from this to say you asked a question:
"Struth talk about paranoia your both very hard work, read A.kings posts to me ! I don't mention A. king in connection of any earth directly WHATSOEVER  in the context as your suggesting. If you want to profile me your not very good at it. As I said I asked you a question AND you still haven't answered it yet."

AG then you respond outside the quote with more unclear words:
"Hmm it's a worry what I mean by confusion is this >should I be asking this stuff, you had better let me know and I can erase it  "

Maybe you are using a translator and/or not really understanding what we are saying and the words are just not being conveyed. I don't see anyone else having so much trouble connecting points and saying things that can't be understood on this thread. Like what does this mean: "Hmm it's a worry what I mean by confusion is this"? You didn't ask a question, you made a bunch of statements that didn't have any appearance to the initial suggestion to try grounding. Some of which was insulting. Then there was an unclear question about Tesla followed by getting back to Tesla basics. And when I mentioned this you then respond several times with more unclear statements in the form of denials which were not making sense.

As you can see, I have no problem answering questions if I know what you are asking. But you need to explain what this first response to A.King meant? Can you address each of my points above? Otherwise it is just confusion and does no one any good here. Can you see that you did actually respond to A.King's suggestion about grounding? Even if you don't remember doing that, can you click the link above and go there and read your words and your quote of his words that were appropriate? You deny this and then deny that you insulted him. Then you say he is trolling you. And now you deflect this point as if all you were doing was asking a question, and that I am supposedly not answering! How could I even responde to something that wasn't even asked in a way that could be understood??? Perhaps you are thinking you are saying or reading things that you are not? I've gone over all the exchanges to make sure I didn't miss something here and I can't make sense of any of it. Either there is a translation problem because you do not speak English as your native language (which is the case with some people here and that is fine), or you just don't care to type carefully enough to be understood, and/or you don't bother to pay attention to what you are replying to or remember what you wrote, or you have some issues you need help with, or this is an attempt to create a needless controversy for no reason. Can you take the time to clear this all up. What is going on here AG? I'll get to your last question after you explain why all this above has happened?

[rickfriedrich]

Ok, to attempt to answer AG's question that is a separate thing from all the confusion generated by his words that I can't understand, I will quote here the first question that I can make some sense of:

In https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535818/#msg535818
AG quotes me and replies as follows:
Rick is quoted as:
"AG,
I don't understand any of your points made here to A. Not one thing you say makes any sense here or even resembles the quote you give about grounding. All of Tesla's systems were grounded so what are you talking about?"

AG replies:
"What i'm saying is how will an earth connected to a sine wave change anything in or on a 'positive electricity' JB says that in countless videos the answer is it wont.
What I couldn't figure out was what is missing from 'negative electricity' ? ? ?"

So I (Rick) reply now in part and more fully after the next quote. I have already written a lot on this within the last few days. We are not talking about being connected to a sine wave. Although it is almost impossible to know the context of what you say in all these exchanges as you don't take the time make clear or connected statements. Anyway, we are dealing with oscillatory energy gains within a resonance tank circuit. Resonance draws in more electrons in from the local environment. From the air and surrounding collector objects, etc. The ground is the biggest contributor of electrons so this is one reason why gains and the beneficial resonance processes increase with ground connections done the right way. The earth is also a capacitance and sink. There are other things to consider as well but that is dealing with other free energy systems we are not talking about here. The one electron theory is that as electrons are spun by either magnetic or electric impulsing they give off both magnetic and electric impulses out of phase. So in an osciallating resonant tank circuit they are being spun much more and thus the gains result from a simple process that requires very little energy to trigger. As resonance is attractive like a magnet, more electrons get sucked into the environment and correspondingly get spun as well. Thus more resulting magnetic and electric impulsing occurs. Whether there is such a thing as an electron, or whether the electron pairs separate and come back together as the theory suggests, the model works and the resulting phenomena can be predictable and repeated. And as I warned, without grounding in these experiments we expose ourselves to electron depletion as we become somewhat connected to the air ground around these rf systems and as such become electron donators. This is a big problem in our new rf world where we are isolated from the ground with our rubber shoes. We are robbed of electrons that are needed for our vitality, and we no longer can recharge from the ground as we always did before rubber shoes were invented...

In the following post I am replying to:

You continue quoting me as asking:
As for the question, what do you mean by "in respect to the earth on a scope?"

Then you, AG state:
"( the zero line goes below zero assuming EARTH is connected to this line) J Bedini refers to it in the no 7 video when he is scoping the wave form the black odd looking square looking wheel and i think your stood behind him as in a.kings photo ) The scope shot clearly shows a ground Zero line with the impulses going negative as spikes below it."

Then you continue quoting me as:
"Not following here what the question is. Difference between positive and negative energy is it just the impulses? The impulse creates a negative experience prior to the current flow at switch turn on and after switch turn off (which is like another switch on as the inductor becomes a source charge itself). The negative is not the spike but the spike is the result after the event(s). Oh, I thought you were referring to the negative probe and connection to the earth/ground. So maybe you were asking about the scope wave going negative?"

Then you, AG respond with:
"Yes"
Followed outside the quote with:
"Hmm it's a worry what I mean by confusion is this >should I be asking this stuff, you had better let me know and I can erase it  "

The whole use of the word "earth" by you has been very confusing as I wrote last post. You need to properly communicate otherwise there is no purpose to any of this. Please answer that post before we move on with this subject. What is happening with this confusion is equivocation between the words earth and zero line on the scope. And somehow you forgot/denied the initial context of A.King's suggestion to try and earth grounding, and you then appear to ask a later question about the scope wave going negative or below the zero line. Then it appears here that you are specifying a connection between connecting to the earth ground and the wave going below zero. This is not what I am or Bedini was saying. Going negative or below zero has nothing to do with connecting to earth ground. Hopefully that answers your question if that was really the question. But further, the zero line on a scope is not a reference to ground. Voltages are potential measurements, not references to above or below ground. You can have actual voltage or potential differences above or below ground, but not in reference to these motors. Now you are confused by Bedini in relation to the video Jin took a few years ago at Aaron's meeting where Bedini is caught in another lie in this respect. Bedini says, as I quoted last night in the post on that subject, that the spike will be accordingly higher or lower based on the altitude of the motor. This is not a mistake but an outright lie from Bedini who indeed spoke the truth in the DVD7 and many other places showing that the voltage of the scope reading will be determined by the rate of change, turns of the inductor, and amperage being impulse on the motor side of the system. The only way altitude would have anything to do with it would be if the motor was very high above the ground and had a long wire connected to the ground where there could be a potential difference. Still it would not even there change the spike at that place in the circuit. This was a complete confusion of two different things altogether. And he wasn't even talking about the potentials from a high antenna. Don Smith talked about that and that was an early system he had where he tapped the potential difference between a lower point and a higher point with a long wire, etc. But Bedini was saying that merely being a higher altitude with the ground being higher as well, resulted in having the spike being 150V higher per meter of altitude above sea level. But that would mean he would have 100,000V spike readings, which he did not ever with those motors. We can in fact get such high spikes if we have a fast enough rate of change, but nothing to do with altitude. So this was not even nonsense but flat out lying. This confused my friend who filmed it and apparently AG who mentioned the video link yesterday where John said this. I missed that statement in that video because it was after the years I was involved with Bedini.

Anyway, I can see where some of the confusion has come from here. Not from DVD7 at all, which was the best thing Bedini gave everyone (and if he only did that DVD and nothing else before or after then we would all be a lot better off at this time).

The black square looking thing is the window motor that we built prior to that DVD7 video. This was the result of one of my private forums on that motor. The emails have been posted on the internet on this or another forum. There are some important things mentioned there, one of them being the first time John started the lie about having first made the window motor and publishing a mature book on the subject in 1971 (in truth 20 years prior to when he actually made contents). Ironically he says at the end of the DVD7 (the 30 minute mark of the second section) to Tony (who published that lie right on the front cover and copyright page) that the window motor came from, as a result of, his first 1984 book on free energy, Bedini's Free Energy Generator (which was republished in behind that faked date publication of the window motor). So at the same time he is telling Tony in the video the motor came from his beginning work in 1984, he is telling us on the forum that it came from 1971 (some years before Newman made it). At some point he pushes this on Tony and we both don't remember the statement in the video contradicting this. No one caught this major contradiction until I finally got around watching it a few weeks ago.

So we see here the importance of focusing on history and historical accuracy. This is what I have to deal with day to day with thousands of people doing free energy research. Countless people are stumbled by this biggest name in free energy research. This is not a personal matter for me, but here again we can see confusion people have because of major lies being told by these big names. The problem is that Bedini's influence will never go away, and he did say a lot of important things. So hopefully this clears up at least a few points.

[AlienGrey]

NO Comment

[popolibero]

Hi Rick,


ok, we are clear on the series/parallel issue. I have done many circuits with impulses and parallel resonant tanks, with series arrangements only with ac. The parallel setup is very easy to understand once one looks at all the energy exchange sequences between cap and coil. The series arrangement with pulsing is a bit more difficult to understand. I supposed since you called it zero voltage process, your arrangement on the SG output is a series arrangement, since across the series arrangement there's no voltage to measure (due to 180 degrees cancelling effect). After trying that on the circuit I'm not so sure anymore if that's what you're doing. Inserting a parallel tank on the output is very easy, but why would that be zero voltage?


thanks,
Mario

[rickfriedrich]

Mario,
Yes you will find a big difference between driving the tanks with sine wave and with impulses. This is what Tesla explained. And yet the same input energy is used to do both. So this is a nonlinear experience in reference to gains. The regular gains from impulsing or oscillatory energy, not AC or DC.

The zero voltage is merely what a regular volt meter shows. There is still voltage shown on a scope as shown in the picture given in the video description if you haven't seen that. I'm not making that point as an important deal any more than saying that this is what you are after when doing this. So it is a way of seeing if you got it right. I have only demonstrated the basic level to the public showing the voltage to be as low as 0.01V on the AC and DC settings. I am not making a no voltage claim as it is merely in reference to the regular meters. And that whole subject is another matter. I will only say so much as I am not planning to give my arrangements in the box. I am only showing the basic level of doing this, which in fact can multiply this out many times nevertheless. Because that is all what people need to power all of their needs. But the perfect way ends up crossing a line and I am not going to do that. For my students and customers who want these as products I am saying here that I will not be making modules for the public along these lines. I will only provide parts for people to do the basic process which is good enough. So this leaves everyone with homework to do. You will need to read Tesla as I mentioned, and do basic calculations, and experiment. Obviously some students have figured this out as I have shown the first one. This is the kind of thing this thread requests. Just because the perfect ideal system is not revealed with specific part numbers and exact specifications does not mean that I haven't revealed it to you guys on this thread. People can read what I have written or merely skim over it. My students are reading every word even though they are not engaging here. So I am not really writing all this for the few people commenting here but for everyone who is wanting to learn these things, including all who come later. I will be gathering all these into one place and hopefully give some organization to it. I'll show that with the next video.

As for series, let me say again, my hint over the last few years in giving Kron's last diagram in the relevant article he wrote was to show this beyond a one wire path, and rather a 3D network of branches. So here I am showing everyone the means how to do that. And I am not going to repeat that. People can go back and reread what I said about Tesla. So we can go off into all sorts of directions once we understand how Tesla's processes work (which are totally opposite to mainstream methods). We can even do that at the basic level.

Even though I am revealing the perfect system here, but not giving specific part numbers or specifications, I still am fully revealing the basic system which is not only an OU system but also is a multiplier as well. I am doing this in two different but similar ways. One with the motor or solid state arrangement using relatively low frequencies, and the other with the hf resonance kit. For the kit shows the perfect system if you are a good student and do your homework. Anyone carefully working through it will realize it. So I have given several ways to experience unlimited additions to OU systems besides revealing the essential themes and associated important points on how almost all OU systems work (which is also in the upcoming Free Energy Cheat Sheet). And with that said and done, there is nothing left to do then just helping people see this.

You will have to answer the why there is a zero voltage yourself. I have covered that in the original Selfish Circuits or Loving Giving Paths video in that series (the video that you first see on my youtube channel). Remember, everything has to be in balance. All this requires a completely different way of looking at things. You cannot do this with mainstream beliefs and practices. It's an aha experience. Embracing the truths of the themes is the first condition, then you can apply some of the ordinary math to deal with the specifications.

Hi Rick,
ok, we are clear on the series/parallel issue. I have done many circuits with impulses and parallel resonant tanks, with series arrangements only with ac. The parallel setup is very easy to understand once one looks at all the energy exchange sequences between cap and coil. The series arrangement with pulsing is a bit more difficult to understand. I supposed since you called it zero voltage process, your arrangement on the SG output is a series arrangement, since across the series arrangement there's no voltage to measure (due to 180 degrees cancelling effect). After trying that on the circuit I'm not so sure anymore if that's what you're doing. Inserting a parallel tank on the output is very easy, but why would that be zero voltage?
thanks,
Mario